Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck College, which concentrates on part-time students. Everybody will welcome what the Government are doing directly for part-time students. Ministers have given specific assurances that help will be provided for the institutions themselves, such as Birkbeck, the Open University and other universities. As my noble friend has said, some other universities are seeking to delay the introduction of HEFCE's recommendations. Will my noble friend ignore those other universities—perhaps telling us who they are—and give us a clear assurance that the Government will not delay the introduction recommended by HEFCE of increased grants for those other universities?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we welcome what the Minister has said about financial support for part-time students, but does he agree that there is in practice a decrease in spending, as the opportunities for lifelong learning are diminishing on a daily basis and all over the country the number of part-time courses for students in higher education is being cut? Will he comment?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by HEFCE for the new teaching fund allocations work very much to the advantage of part-time institutions and are part of the mechanism to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, referred, of offsetting the advantage of top-up fees for full-time institutions? Will he make sure that pressure is put on HEFCE to bring the new proposals forward now rather than delaying them, as has been proposed for three years?

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that long-term projects of a major kind, such as the Severn barrage, which has been spoken of, will never be viable until such time as there is a guaranteed and long-term financial preference given of a major variety to forms of electricity that are generated in a green manner and not by conventional fuels? Until that is done, the Severn barrage and everything else is pie in the sky.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation is that it is extremely expensive at this point, and it is difficult to see that the cost will decrease in future. We are talking about a large amount of concrete, and I do not think that that cost will decrease. Clearly, if you are prepared to put in enormous sums to subsidise it, you can make it viable on that basis—but only on that basis.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have no wish to deny anyone access to justice, but will that not be the exact effect of the decision? Would the Minister care to admit that this, like other decisions taken recently—for instance, the substantial increase in family court fees—has been unwillingly forced on the Legal Services Commission and the DCA by the other Chancellor in 11 Downing Street?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The Question whether this clause shall stand part takes us to the part of the Bill that envisages the Secretary of State giving grants to Natural England.
	Clause 14 says:
	"(1) The Secretary of State may make grants to Natural England of such amounts as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
	(2) A grant under this section may be made subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
	The purpose of the Motion to oppose the Question whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill is to explore how independent the clause renders Natural England.
	On the previous Committee sitting we said that Natural England was very important; certainly the Liberal Democrats accept that it is. We also said that it should be able to give advice to which Ministers across government must pay due regard. I tabled the relevant amendment to that effect, and the Government have not yet fully accepted the case for it, although I live in hope that they will reconsider. Irrespective of whether they do so, there is still the question of the independence of Natural England if it is reliant on handouts from the Secretary of State. What happens if future Ministers are not happy with the advice that Natural England gives? I accept that that is not the case with present Ministers, but we are drafting legislation for the future, and a future Minister may hold views that we could not even envisage at present. Should we make Natural England so reliant on grants, which could be withdrawn at any time or be made subject to conditions with which that body was not at all happy? I submit that that renders Natural England far from independent.

Viscount Eccles: I very much support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is possibly a more complete way of achieving what I have set out in my amendment, which follows. In my amendment, I question the policy towards the relationship between the Secretary of State and Parliament, as did the noble Baroness.
	Clause 15(4) reads:
	"The Secretary of State must publish any guidance given under this section".
	The amendment would alter the wording to:
	"The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament any guidance given under this section".
	It is entirely usual to give the Secretary of State a duty to keep Parliament fully informed on matters of significance. The proposed duty "must publish" is subjective. The Secretary of State could decide what to publicise and to whom—a much less satisfactory option than the duty to inform Parliament. Not that that duty would in any way preclude publicity—quite the contrary. The full text of any guidance would be available for the publication of comment by any interested party, including both the Secretary of State and Natural England. The amendment therefore improves the balance of the relationship between the executive and the legislature and increases the likelihood of well informed publicity.

Lord Bach: These three amendments relate to the power of the Secretary of State to give Natural England guidance. The Secretary of State needs this power to help to ensure that Natural England continues to focus on achieving government outcomes over time and to allow her to give guidance on how its purposes are to be achieved. This is a necessary provision for a body which will deliver such a large amount of the Government's policies and which will be the source of the Government's expertise in key areas. At the risk of repeating myself, I can say that the power to give guidance is a standard provision for most large non-departmental public bodies—for example, the Environment Agency.
	As the noble Viscount has just reminded us, guidance from the Secretary of State will be published, which means that the process will be open and transparent. Guidance will be on topics such as Natural England's role in relation to regional planning and associated matters, as referred to specifically in the Bill at Clause 15(1). I shall have a little more to say about regional planning in a moment. The guidance will be discursive, by which I mean that it will resemble an essay rather than a statutory instrument. Although Natural England must have regard to the guidance, it will not be bound by it.
	Following pre-legislative scrutiny by, and at the suggestion of, the EFRA Committee, subsections (3) and (6) were inserted to make Clause 15 clearer. Subsection (5) was added on Report in another place to add extra certainty about how such guidance can be varied or revoked.
	Amendments Nos. 206 and 215 would effectively make this guidance the subject of an order before Parliament. As I indicated earlier, the guidance will include topics such as Natural England's role in regional planning. We do not think it appropriate to make such guidance subject to parliamentary procedure. The priority has to be that a wide range of stakeholders understand English Nature's role in such matters. That is why we emphasise publication and think that that is the right approach.
	I turn to the issue of why regional planning processes are not specifically referred to in the Bill—for example, regional spatial strategies. A list of regional planning processes within subsection (1) would be relatively inflexible and could become out of date quickly. That addresses the concerns of the EFRA Committee, and clarifies the importance that we place on Natural England's engagement at regional level. Will the regional planning board bodies have to listen to Natural England? The clause cannot be used to place a duty on other public bodies to listen to Natural England. The Select Committee report made it clear that it did not think that any person had a right to be heard at a public examination.
	Clause 4 gives Natural England very robust powers to ask other public bodies for an explanation if it believes that its advice has not been acted on. Any public body is at risk of judicial review through the courts if a party feels that Natural England is acting unlawfully.
	On Amendment No. 216, to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, spoke, I am advised that a strict requirement of "contemporaneously" could provide practical difficulties. As a matter of protocol we expect Natural England to have a copy of the final guidance as issued by the Secretary of State a short time before it is published to the world at large, so that Natural England has the opportunity to respond to press inquiries. If the guidance is published on the web, it would need to be uploaded on to a server. If the guidance is published in paper form, someone has to produce the paper copies and make them available. Even if these arrangements could be put into effect very speedily, it is unlikely that publication could be genuinely contemporaneous. I hope that the noble Duke does not think that I am making a petty point; it is "contemporaneously" that is the problem.
	It is our intention that the guidance will be circulated to interested parties and published on the website as soon as practicably possible. It is already implicit in Clause 15 that by publishing guidance we want to be open and transparent. Because of the concern expressed by the noble Duke, we shall consider his amendment to see whether we can assert a phrase that indicates dispatch in publishing the guidance without creating the practical difficulties that I have tried to describe.

Viscount Eccles: In opposing the Question that Clause 16 stand part of the Bill, I wish to find out how the power to give Natural England directions will be used. The existing literature on directions—in Craies on Legislation 2004, for example, states:
	"Acts frequently require or allow a Minister to give directions, generally in respect of some administrative matter. So long as there is a duty to comply with the direction it can be seen as a form of subordinate legislation. Generally the duty to comply will be express, but, particularly where the direction is given to a public body that is susceptible to the administrative law process of judicial review, it may be appropriate for the duty to comply to be left to be implied".
	Clause 16(1) reads:
	"The Secretary of State may give Natural England general or specific directions as to the exercise of its functions".
	I draw attention to "general", as it is related to "functions". This does not sound like administrative matters.
	On Second Reading, the Minister said, in his reply to the debate:
	"Natural England will be no less independent that its predecessor bodies".—[Official Report, 7/11/05; col. 470.]
	Yet I can find no directions clause in, for example, either the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which is in any way comparable to Clause 16. Presumably, however the clause is implemented, it is not intended to reduce—nor will it have the effect of reducing—Natural England's independence. What, then, is it for?
	There is a clue in the Defra memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's sixth report, which states on page 40, paragraph 81:
	"Clause 16 (directions to the Natural England) Power conferred on: Secretary of State Power exercisable by: Direction Parliamentary procedure: None".
	I suppose that directions have hitherto been meant to deal only with administrative matters. If they have done more, or are intended to, surely there would be a parliamentary procedure at least equivalent to that applied to statutory instruments. No Secretary of State would wish to deny Parliament access to policy change.
	However, Defra goes on to say:
	"These . . . powers of direction contained in the bill are drafted in similar mode so that they must all be in writing and published in a way that the person giving the directions thinks is suitable . . . All directions may either be of general or specific nature. It is considered by the department to . . . have these direction making powers in circumstances where a body with significant responsibilities is not acting in a way that is consistent with the purposes for which it is established".
	That could be interpreted as meaning that a Bill is laid before your Lordships' House, debated on Second Reading, Clauses 3 to 10 are debated in detail in Committee and on Report and yet, once enacted, the Secretary of State can introduce detailed rules of the game without reference to Parliament—new and unexpected rules, perhaps.
	Am I right to conclude that Clause 16 goes wider than any similar clause in predecessor Acts? What is the Government's policy on directions, and how will it be applied to Natural England? Will the House be able to consider, before Report, a draft of the directions which the Secretary of State intends to make?

Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for having raised this subject. Clause 16 does not go any wider than existing powers of this kind. As with most NDPBs which deliver the democratically elected government's policies, the Secretary of State needs to be able to give Natural England directions, because they provide a bottom line to ensure that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the NDPB—so that no Secretary of State can say, "I would have stopped this or that NDPB doing that, but I couldn't". It is difficult to give the Committee practical examples because we are not aware of any situation where English Nature or the Countryside Agency has been directed to act in a certain manner despite the powers to direct these organisations in relation to many of their existing functions. Also covered could be actions that might expose the board to legal challenge, perhaps in a public health emergency.
	This clause is not an effort to undermine Natural England's independence. As the noble Viscount hinted, the Environment Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Agency are all subject to directions and none of them lacks independence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young—the chief executive of the Environment Agency—attested on the first day in Committee.
	Powers for the Secretary of State to give directions are normal throughout Whitehall and are essential for accountability. I hope that the noble Viscount approves of the requirement that we have included for any directions to be published to ensure openness and transparency. The parliamentary briefing from the confederation of the three organisations that will come together to make up Natural England stated:
	"As a non Departmental Public Bodies we accept the need to account to government in fulfilling our statutory duties as set down by Parliament. We therefore accept also the powers for Government to guide and, in the last resort, direct Natural England".
	It welcomed,
	"the reassurance given in Clauses 15 and/or 16 by the requirements to consult, the transparency of publication and the specificity of the obligation set out therein".
	Those are important words. The reassurances are, if anything, greater than those that currently apply to English Nature and the Countryside Agency, which have never been accused of lacking independence and have a strong track record of influential policy advice.
	The fears expressed by the noble Viscount this afternoon do not have credence because these directions are in line with the directions given to other such bodies.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: It is with some excitement that we move to Chapter 2. I am sure the Minister will agree that we have long awaited this moment. Chapter 2 deals with the creation of the Commission for Rural Communities. The purpose of my opposing clause stand part is to explore in greater depth than we were able to at Second Reading the need for the Commission for Rural Communities and to enable some debate about that need.
	I still contend that when the Government initially thought of the Bill in response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the intention was not to create another layer of quangos. The Minister replied to that point at Second Reading. Indeed, other noble Lords spoke and expressed the very evident need for rural areas to have somebody to represent them. I absolutely would not disagree with that. Last Thursday we had a very interesting debate about the needs of rural areas to which the Minister gave a full reply. However, I question whether we need yet another quango to represent those areas.
	I remind the Committee that in England there are nearly 5,000 locally appointed bodies and 50,000 appointees, which is approximately three times the number of elected local councillors. The Committee will recollect that I am quite exercised about the fact that there are democratically elected local councillors, MPs who represent rural areas—in most cases, very ably—and an entire democratic layer of people who should be representing the needs of those areas.
	The purpose of the Commission for Rural Communities, as set out in Clause 18(1)(a), is to raise,
	"awareness among relevant persons and the public of rural needs".
	But I would point out that, first, we have elected people who can do that and, secondly, when Defra was set up from a reborn MAFF, if you like, the very change of name to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested that it would be the champion of rural affairs and the body that undertook rural-proofing, and so on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, mentioned in his report that he imagined that Defra would undertake rural-proofing. The Government may be taking an easy way out by creating an independent body. If rural-proofing does not work, they can say, "The body was not really doing its work". If it does, they can say, "How well we have done in creating a body that does that work so well". Either way, the Government win, but democracy loses out.
	The Minister will no doubt say that there is provision here for checking the performance of the other bodies that are supposed to be delivering rural regeneration, and so on. There are already plenty of bodies checking performance. There is the Audit Commission, which audits all sorts of things. We even have the Performance and Innovation Unit, which from time to time produces excellent reports on a number of subjects. There is no reason that it could not report on that every so often. This is yet another body that duplicates some work already being done.
	The Bill is more retrospective than most, in that the Commission for Rural Communities already exists. It is sending out communications—indeed, its chairman has been round to lobby me on why it should exist—but we have not yet passed the Bill. I do not speak against Dr Burgess, who is doing a tremendous job already lobbying for rural areas, but it is curious to have something in existence that has not yet been agreed through the democratic process.
	When the matter was discussed in another place, that argument was strongly advanced by the Select Committee. The government side did not take that view, but we enjoyed the support of the Conservatives. Mr James Paice said:
	"We share the view that the CRC is a wholly unnecessary body that will almost certainly be ineffective in achieving the Government's objectives"—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/6/05; col. 97.]
	That puts it as concisely as I can.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness mentioned the Select Committee. I think that she meant the Standing Committee on the Bill. The Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, also commented on that. I shall discuss that in due course. I think that she means the committee considering the Bill in the Commons.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: That is a very useful correction and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
	So there is a question whether we need the Commission for Rural Communities at all. There is its cost—we have all seen the regulatory impact assessment. Of course, the merging of some Countryside Agency functions with rural development agencies and Natural England will save some money. But a cost will be attached to the Commission for Rural Communities continuing, which absolutely has to be justified. The claims are that the programme should pay for itself within three years of completion in 2007.
	I remind noble Lords that when the Government listened to the many voices from rural areas about the critical situation affecting affordable housing and then sought solutions, they did not turn to the Countryside Agency or to the new Commission for Rural Communities. They created yet another commission, which is chaired by Elinor Goodman. I am sure that her report will be very worth while, but that is an extremely good example of the Government's ability to create and fund a commission study when there is a need to address a particular subject in rural areas and to conduct a very concentrated study on something that those elected in rural areas, be they MPs or councillors, have highlighted as pressing.
	I contend that there is no need for another very general quango that may itself commission yet other commissions. All this undermines the basic idea of democracy.

Lord Carter: This is an interesting debate on the amendments in the group led by the clause stand part debate. I added my name to Amendments Nos. 225, 242, 247 and 255, so it will be helpful if we can deal with all the matters attached to the concept of the CRC. This chapter is of course about the functions of the CRC. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, do we need it at all?
	I was struck just recently by an excellent briefing from the Countryside Alliance, which I am sure other noble Lords received, which set out a whole range of policy recommendations. I shall quote one or two of them:
	"Rural areas should be assessed on their own terms and public investment/funding allocation should make due allowance for rural sparcity. The countryside is a different place to the towns, and it should not be assumed that what is a suitable type and level of investment for the towns is also right for rural areas. SSA spending in rural areas must be raised to the national average. There should be no competition between rural and urban areas for funding—both urban and rural areas need adequate funding, not one at the expense of the other".
	As I say, there are a large number of policy recommendations on those lines. I just wonder who, in the absence of the CRC, will be making the case across government for the arguments which we all understand and that have been put so well by the Countryside Alliance. It is unrealistic to expect the local authorities or the other organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned to be able to do this. She also mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I remind the House that I quoted at Second Reading what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the concept of the CRC in his evidence to the EFRA Select Committee at col. 51 on 9 November 2004, as it is worth remembering:
	"I was quite happy to see the policy advisory responsibility of the Countryside Agency continue. The argument was whether that was done through a revised Countryside Agency or through the Rural Affairs Forum. On balance, I think the Government was probably right to go for the Countryside Agency because I think it is more structured to give the sort of policy advice that is necessary".
	The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, clearly accepted the concept of the CRC, so to quote in aid of the argument on the other side is perhaps a shade misleading. The noble Baroness also mentioned Mr James Paice, who said:
	"There is obviously going to be a Commission for Rural Communities".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/6/05; col. 117.]
	So it seems that the Official Opposition accept the idea.
	I mentioned the Standing Committee, and I could not help noticing in the debate on the CRC that Mr Colin Breed, who I believe is the Liberal Democrat spokesman, spoke extremely strongly in the morning against the concept of the CRC. Sadly, he was not present in the afternoon when the vote was taken on the clause stand part; he had an important constituency engagement, apparently.
	Perhaps I may repeat the questions I put at Second Reading. Who will do the rural-proofing and rural advocacy, have a direct line to the Prime Minister, and provide the information now provided by the Countryside Agency and its successor body? I asked those questions deliberately, but they were not answered by the noble Baroness when she wound up the debate for her party or by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. For those who oppose the concept of the CRC, it would be helpful if they could state clearly and in terms who is to do the rural-proofing and advocacy, have a direct line to the Prime Minister—a factor mentioned in later amendments—and provide the excellent information now available from the agencies?
	The idea that local authorities can do this is, let us say, to have a romantic view of the role of those bodies. Who in a local authority has a direct line to the Prime Minister? Has the LGA been asked? Moreover, which of the 20 organisations that have briefed us on the Bill actually supports abandoning the concept of the CRC? So far as I am aware, every body supports the proposals in the Bill. What message will those parties which support the abolition of the CRC send to the rural community if the CRC is successfully removed by this Committee?
	The noble Baroness mentioned Defra. Who is to rural-proof Defra? She looks surprised but, much as I hate to say it, if she has any idea of what happens in government she will know of the interdepartmental horse-trading that goes on when policy is being described. You need someone with a direct line to the Prime Minister who is able to go over the head of departments and say, "This is the line that must be followed". That was done extremely ably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, during his chairmanship of the Countryside Agency.
	I understand that the Question of whether a clause stand part of the Bill provides an opportunity for us to have a general debate. I am sure we can then take a general decision on Report. But the arguments for the abolition of the CRC will have to be put much more strongly and cogently than has been the case so far.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, yesterday it was my privilege to introduce in the Church of England's General Synod a report on the future of the rural Church and its contribution to rural life. In the debate that followed, speaker after speaker drew on their own experience to call the attention of the synod to the hidden nature of many of the problems and challenges facing our rural communities. Rural poverty, social exclusion and restriction of choice—especially for women, young people and the very old—may be found in small isolated pockets and thus hardly able to show up on the radar of the larger scheme of things, yet they are deeply real to those for whom they are the experience of their daily lives. Many of those people, especially in the remoter and more sparsely populated areas of rural England are, as my right reverend friend the Bishop of Norwich put it, invisible citizens.
	The creation of the CRC, as I understand it, is partly designed to ensure that these invisible citizens are made visible and their voices, so often drowned out by metropolitan noise, are heard. It seems perverse, therefore, to oppose the creation of a national body with such an important remit. Of course there are regional differences, but rural disadvantage, rural poverty and rural needs must be viewed from a national perspective, and national solutions must be found and championed.
	Many of those who spoke in the synod debate yesterday voiced the need for a strong and independent rural advocate, backed by a body properly equipped for the task and able to provide robust rural-proofing of that wide range of government activity that shapes for good or ill the lives of rural people and their communities. Who, for example, will seek effective rural-proofing of the Government's choice agenda, when for many in rural areas it is precisely the lack and impossibility of choice that lies at the heart of impoverishment and social exclusion, and a restriction on effective community development? I make the point in no spirit of contention, but merely as a statement of real need.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, knows, I have listened very carefully to the arguments of those who say that issues of this kind are best dealt with at the local level, but I am afraid that it is a vain hope and entirely unrealistic. Some of the bodies suggested as those able to fulfil a local role, like the RDAs, themselves need rural-proofing, and in any case the RDAs still have to prove their capacity to bring about rural regeneration.
	I here declare an interest as chair of the Devon Strategic Partnership. Together with all my fellow chairs across the south-west, I have deep concerns about RDAs as the sole or principal conduits of rural delivery or channels of rural advocacy. They do not have the membership, experience or remit sufficient to be effective in these roles. Similarly, the regional rural forums, as important as they are, exist for a different purpose—a purpose best served by a strong and independent national body structured to give strategic coherence to their articulated needs. I want to make a plea: obviously that the CRC should exist, but also that it should be a powerful and independent voice on behalf of rural communities.
	But I have another plea. The Churches of this country, and the Church of England in particular, have the most widespread rural network of any organisation. Our churches do not exist to provide visual candy for rural brochures produced by RDAs or regional government offices; they exist because they play a profound role in rural society. I could give many examples of nursery groups operating in village churches, after-school clubs and hospital car services—there are countless examples of the way in which the Churches, including Church schools, contribute profoundly and willingly to rural living. They are major stakeholders, and contribute so much to the social capital so vital to a strong and sustainable rural life.
	I look for a broad-based Commission for Rural Communities representative of the key stakeholders in rural life. I also look for a reassurance that the Government and bodies such as the CRC, when set up, will listen to the voices of all those organisations which constitute civil society—among them the voluntary sector and the rural Church—when strategies are devised. Again I speak from my own experience of partnership working and local area agreements when I say how easily and frequently the representatives of the voluntary and community sectors, and of the private and business sectors, are driven from the table when representatives of local and national government are there in too large numbers.
	The concluding speech on this Bill in the other place ended with this rhetorical flourish:
	"The context of the Bill is the vision of rural England . . . at whose heart is the pursuit of sustainable development, so that social, economic and environmental issues are taken into account in the shaping of policy".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/05; col. 257.]
	It is a vision, but it will come to fruition only if the voices of the rural communities and those who work for them, including the Churches, are really heard.
	The General Synod yesterday passed a motion calling on the Church of England to reassess the adequacy of its own support at a national level for the future of rural England. I hope that this Committee will do no less. The Commission for Rural Communities, properly constituted, can be a good opportunity to ensure that that happens. Let us have it; let it flourish; let it stand as part of the Bill.

Lord Judd: I hope that my noble friend will consider that Amendment No. 244 helps the Government by putting some muscle behind the extremely admirable intention of their proposal.
	I will not bore the Committee by repeating my interests, as I have expressed them before, but I shall spell out a rather different interest that I think I should declare. I am completely the product of an urban existence, but 12 years ago I was one of those who made their home extremely happily in a very rural area. One of the hidden problems that we are dealing with all the time in policy-making in this area is the increasing number of highly articulate, sophisticated, professional people living in the countryside interpreting the needs of the countryside from an urban background. It is essential for the CRC to exist to understand the people and the communities who are rooted in the countryside and what their needs are.
	I make two points to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. First, I agree with her about the importance of local government. That is a traditionally Liberal point of view but it is an objective which I share. If we take democracy seriously, local government is tremendously important. I do not see the two bodies as competing. If the CRC works well, it will strengthen the role of local government through understanding what local authorities in rural areas are trying to do, understanding their problems, bringing those together and speaking out.
	Secondly, since I have made my home in the countryside I have been repeatedly struck by how we sometimes look at housing, health, employment and transport as specific issues in their own right. They interplay with each other, and it seems to me that the CRC in doing its job will be able to bring those different elements together and make strong representations to government about the holistic need of the countryside. That is also a good Liberal principle, and I hope that the noble Baroness might take it seriously. There should be a holistic approach rather than a segmented one. I ask the noble Baroness to think again about our idea of having a whole host of specific individual commissions or specialist committees reporting on particular issues. That would not help; it would complicate the task rather than help to overcome the difficulties.

Lord Bach: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. This has been as good a debate as one could have expected on this subject, which is at the heart of the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. Whatever view noble Lords took on the issue, we are all extremely grateful for what they have had to say. There have been intelligent and sensible arguments from noble Lords who know what they are talking about.
	I am delighted that the preponderance of views was in favour of the establishment of the CRC. That is the Government's policy and we want to see it happen. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for putting her party's views on this issue. She may think that I am about to criticise her party for having changed its mind, but that is the very last thing that I am going to do. Her party has come to a sensible view after much reflection and thought. Indeed, I take her point about wanting a stronger CRC. I thank her for her support for the CRC.
	I was particularly struck, as I think we all were, by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. He spoke with great knowledge and experience. Indeed, I may accuse him of having had a trial run yesterday at the Synod. I do not know whether the response he gets today will be better or worse than the one he get in Church House yesterday, but I thank him very much for what he had to say. His diocese is of course very rural in many parts.
	I shall be as brief as I can. I am very grateful—I think I owe some thanks to my noble friend Carter for this—that all noble Lords have agreed to this vast grouping, as opposed to having a debate just on Clause 17 and then debates on a whole series of individual amendments. I think we have saved the Committee some time. Before I start, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, because without her opposition to clause stand part, we would not have had the debate in this way.
	Clause 17 establishes the Commission for Rural Communities as an independent non-departmental public body. Its general purposes and functions are set out in subsequent clauses. We have amendments to those clauses. The body's statutory status will enable it to perform its role independently and impartially. The clause also introduces Schedule 2, which sets out the constitution of the CRC, including provisions about its status, its membership, its chief executive and other employees, pay and pensions, procedure and accounts and annual reports. Indeed, the group of amendments dealing with some of those issues immediately follows this debate.
	Noble Lords will have noticed that these arrangements are almost identical to those for Natural England, which are set out in Schedule 1. We believe that the CRC will be a strong, independent, rural advocate, adviser and watchdog to help ensure that the Government's policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. It will pay special attention to tackling social disadvantage, of which we have heard much from all sides this afternoon, and to rural areas which experience economic underperformance. It will not be the Countryside Agency by another name; far from it. The CRC will be a much smaller body and, crucially, without delivery functions. It will focus exclusively on issues affecting rural communities, rather than on the broad landscape, conservation and community remit of the Countryside Agency. Of course rural-proofing will be at the heart of the CRC's role and will help Defra and government generally to ensure that all government polices are rural-proofed.
	The process by which the potential impact of policy and decision making on rural areas is evaluated taking the needs of those who live and work in the countryside into account is not a bad definition of rural-proofing. The purpose is to make sure that the needs of rural areas are not sidelined in the thickets of Whitehall, and, indeed, that they are reflected at the heart of all policy making. The CRC will also promote rural-proofing across the wider public sector—for example, in the RDAs and in local government. It will report annually to the Secretary of State on how the policies of government departments and government offices of the regions have been rural-proofed.
	So, in that way alone, the CRC will play a vital role in ensuring that other bodies' policies truly address the needs of rural communities. Arguments on the other side suggest that the CRC's powers and responsibilities should belong to local authorities. Indubitably, local authorities play a vital role in rural service provision. We have sought to enhance that—for example, by setting up rural delivery pathfinders in each region, led by local authorities, to focus on innovative ways of delivering services. But the CRC, in acting as an advocate for rural communities, will seek to establish a national position that, frankly, would by definition be beyond that of any individual local authority, however outstanding.
	The CRC, unlike local authorities, will have a single-minded focus on and expertise in rural matters. Unlike local authorities, the CRC will not be encumbered or distracted by delivery roles, which is part of the role of the local authority, which means that it will be free to provide a powerful and impartial challenge to central, regional and local government. The arguments against local authorities trying to do what the CRC will do are, I hope, clear, but, notwithstanding that, the CRC will need to keep in close touch with local government and vice versa.
	There are those who would argue that the Government are ignoring the report of my noble friend Lord Haskins through the fact of setting up the CRC. In his November 2003 report on rural delivery, he recommended that the functions of the Countryside Agency should be transferred to appropriate specialist organisations. We claim that we have acted on that. We have passed policy development and lead responsibility for rural-proofing to Defra. We have passed the resources formerly devoted to the Countryside Agency for social and economic programmes to the regional development agencies. I listened with interest to the warning from the right reverend Prelate about that. We have given government offices for the regions the lead in supporting the rural voluntary and community sector. We are passing the Countryside Agency's environmental, landscape, access and recreational programmes to the new integrated agency, which is Natural England.
	In other words, all the Countryside Agency's functions are being transferred, just as my noble friend recommended. In meeting those recommendations, however, we have recognised the need for a much smaller body to advise on issues of policy as it affects rural people. To cite the Secretary of State's response to the Haskins report:
	"There will be a continued need for a much smaller organisation, with a new, well focused role providing independent policy advice to Government from a national perspective on issues affecting people in rural communities, and analysing and reporting on best practice in the delivery of the Government's rural policies. We also need to build on experience so far on rural proofing and embedding rural objectives in all relevant aspects of government policy".
	Those words explain the basic thinking behind the need for that organisation.
	I bring the point about the Haskins review to a close by reminding the Committee of the quotation mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carter when Lord Haskins spoke to the EFRA Committee on 9 November 2004. The revised Countryside Agency is, of course, the CRC, which is that same smaller, more focused body referred to by the Secretary of State in her response, which I just cited. Establishing the CRC to take and build on the agency's advisory, advocacy and watchdog functions is a positive measure that will address the needs of rural communities and people who live and work in them.
	However, we were rightly reminded that it is easy to praise the idea of the CRC; the real test is how effective it is. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, was important in that regard. He accused me of occasionally making silk out of sows ears.

Lord Bach: It certainly will be, and I shall make sure that that is done at the earliest possible opportunity.
	I shall now deal with the amendments as briefly as I can. Amendment No. 225, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, among others, seeks to make statutory the role of rural advocate by combining it formally with the position of chairman of the CRC board. Let me begin by clarifying that the current chairman of the Countryside Agency and the rural advocate are, as is well known to the Committee, already the same person—Dr Stuart Burgess—who has been referred to in the debate. Dr Burgess was appointed chairman by the Secretary of State and subsequently designated rural advocate by the Prime Minister in 2004.
	The arrangement derives from the 2000 rural White Paper, which announced the creation of the role of rural advocate to,
	"argue the case on countryside issues and for rural people at the highest levels in Government and outside".
	The role was to be a designation, not an appointment. Although it has seemed eminently sensible to us to link it to the chairman post—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, if he will forgive me saying so, was the first person to whom the designation was given—we believe this is better done by custom and practice than by force of law.
	The report on our draft Bill, published in March last year, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in another place emphasised that this role is vital and welcomed our assurance that it was likely that the chairman of the CRC would be designated the rural advocate. In our response we stated that the CRC would provide substantial back-up to the rural advocate in what will undoubtedly be a pretty challenging role. We do not believe it necessary to add the designation to the specification for the chairman in Schedule 2, in that, unlike with the Countryside Agency, the concept of rural advocacy is built into the general purposes and powers of the CRC in Clauses 18 and 19 of this Bill.
	The ability of the rural advocate to carry out his responsibilities has not been restricted by not having statutory backing. He already enjoys access to the Government and to Parliament, to the whole range of local, regional and national bodies concerned with rural affairs, and obviously to rural people themselves. Access to the Prime Minister is built into the description of the chairman's role. At present we are not convinced that the chairman of the CRC should be given any special functions over and above the wide remit and functions already set out in Chapter 2. That is our response at this stage to the noble Lord's amendment.
	I shall take Amendments Nos. 241, 251 and 252 together. This group seeks to alter how the purpose and roles of the CRC are described in Clauses 18 and 19. Amendment No. 241 would formalise the CRC's monitoring role in a way which is not spelt out elsewhere in the Bill. It would raise the CRC's information and advisory roles to a more prominent position as one of two elements of its general purpose. Crucially, it would also remove the requirement for the CRC to promote sustainability in meeting rural needs. Sustainable rural communities are of course one of our main aims, as well as one of the main aims of the CRC and other bodies concerned with rural communities.
	The amended Clause 18(1)(a), mentioned in Amendment No. 241, would not add anything genuinely new to the commission's purpose. Ensuring that government policies do not disadvantage persons living in rural areas is already embedded in all the CRC's monitoring and watchdog work. The revision to Clause 18(1)(b) similarly would not add anything substantially new as information collection and publication is already thoroughly embedded in the advisory function of the CRC and, we think, covered adequately in Clauses 19(b) and 20.
	Amendment No. 251, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would remove the CRC's advisory role. She told us that this is a probing amendment. The CRC will be a key source of independent expert advice to government and to other public, private and voluntary bodies on the social and economic needs of people and communities in rural areas. It has already demonstrated some of the ways in which it will exercise this function, through its thematic study on rural disadvantage and its report, the State of the Countryside 2005. The CRC's continuation of this role will be of great value to all those concerned with the facts about rural needs.
	I turn to Amendment No. 252, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. My answer to her is this: at that stage it would be too late for the CRC to monitor and report on the development of policies which would have already been adopted by relevant persons. However, I think her response to me would be that while the wording of her amendment may not be absolutely appropriate, the CRC should be looking at the development of policies as much as anything else. I shall take that back.
	Amendment No. 242 seeks to widen the commission's general purpose to include promoting awareness of rural-proofing, a definition of which would be added to Clause 18. Amendment No. 247 seeks to widen the commission's general purpose to include promoting awareness of rural proofing, a definition of which, again, would be added to Clause 18. Amendment No. 255 seeks to impose a duty to monitor and to report to Parliament directly on rural proofing, not through the Secretary of State as at present. This reporting duty would extend to,
	"the social, economic and environmental state of rural England".
	We do not think the amendments are necessary. The second amendment would place on the CRC a further burden of responsibility and formally require it to do something already at the heart of its role and work. Defra already supports the commission with funds to monitor and report annually on rural-proofing activities across all levels of government. Similarly, the CRC is already funded by Defra to produce an annual state-of-the-countryside report, about which we have heard. It covers, to use the wording in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron,
	"the social, economic and environmental state of rural England".
	The existing wording will empower the commission to continue to carry out these functions. That is why we do not consider the amendments necessary, although, of course, we appreciate the positive motives behind them.
	Let me deal next with Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 250, 253 and 254 together. We do not believe there is an obvious purpose to these amendments. Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 250 and 254 would redefine the focus of the CRC's work from "rural needs" to,
	"the needs of the inhabitants of rural communities".
	We are not sure that that would bring any significant benefits. Clause 18(3) contains an adequate definition of "rural needs" as,
	"the social and economic needs of persons in rural areas of England",
	which the amendments would not change or omit.
	Amendment No. 253 seeks to alter the wording of Clause 19(c). Again, we do not think it adds anything. By implication, where the commission reports on the way in which policies adopted by relevant persons have been implemented, such a report would highlight both the good and the bad. The use of the word "extent" in this clause would also render the extra words "or not meeting" superfluous.
	As to Amendments Nos. 245, 246 and 248, the role of the commission will be to focus on the social and economic needs of rural communities, focusing primarily on the disadvantaged. However, in championing those affected by social disadvantage or in areas of economic underperformance, it will enhance not weaken the relationship between rural communities and their environment.
	In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I can assure the Committee that the CRC will not be looking at social and economic needs in isolation from environmental needs. It will raise awareness of the relationships between farmers and land managers and their neighbouring rural communities, including social dependencies.
	The Bill requires the commission, Natural England and the Joint Conservation Committee all to contribute to sustainable development through the functions they each perform. The CRC is tasked with promoting sustainable ways of meeting the needs of rural people and rural areas on the basis that anything that is not sustainable is, frankly, not in their interests.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: I shall speak to all the amendments in the group in the order in which they appear on the Groupings List. Amendment No. 226 proposes that the CRC chairman should be elected by its board. I believe that all members of the CRC board should be chosen for their particular skills, whether they are academic researchers, farmers or people who own rural businesses, people with experience of rural deprivation, those with experience of young or old people living in rural areas and so on. The chairman is chosen because of his or her broad knowledge and experience and the ability to chair. In the light of our recent debate, he or she must have the confidence of the Secretary of State and, indeed, the backing of the Prime Minister. Therefore, I believe that the chair ought to be appointed rather than chosen by the board.
	As regards Amendments Nos. 227 and 229, I totally agree that all members of the commission must be chosen following an open process and interview. Amendment No. 228 proposes that all regional rural forum chairmen should automatically be members of the commission. On reflection, I do not think that is the right way forward. The process of becoming a regional rural forum chair is pretty random. Sometimes it can be short term. I know of two cases of people taking on that position just for a year because no one else could be found. That would not be satisfactory. In many cases it is a Buggins' turn process. Someone may even be on a regional rural forum because no one else from an organisation volunteered. In such circumstances it would not be a case of an open process and interview. That is not the right way forward.
	The other argument against such a process is that it may result in gaps in expertise on the CRC board or an unnecessary doubling up of expertise because it would be rather a random process. After all, regional rural forum chairs do get their say currently in the National Rural Affairs Forum. Representing the delegated interests of your regional rural forum is a slightly different job from the free thinking, politically aware skills that will be required for the CRC. There is a much better way of maintaining a small and effective CRC board; that is, by ensuring that a proper process of selection takes place which also takes provenance into account. My experience of the Countryside Agency was that it made certain that there was someone from every region, or someone who could at least represent the interests of that region, on its board. You can represent provenance as well as skills and expertise. As I say, it has been done before.
	As regards Amendment No. 230, the chairman ought to be involved in the selection process of other board members. He or she has to meld that board into an effective force and knows best both the skills and weaknesses of existing members and hence knows what the gaps are. I suspect that the Secretary of State can insist on having his way in the matter but to my mind the chairman must have a fairly big say. I once came up against a Minister's wishes in that regard and I am glad to say that I won. As I say, it is important that the chair has a fairly big say in choosing the other board members. I do not understand the desire to remove paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2, which concerns members having relevant experience or skills.
	As regards Amendment No. 231, I am all in favour of not having too big a board but it seems sensible to leave provision in the Bill to change the numbers on the board without necessarily having primary legislation. However, I am not too fussed about that.
	Amendment No. 231A, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, refers to,
	"the desirability of appointing at least one person who has . . . experience of . . . the rural affairs of local authorities".
	I totally support the thinking behind that amendment. It is certainly desirable as the CRC will have to have a very good understanding of the way in which local authorities work and how to influence them. As was mentioned earlier, the CRC will also have to have a good working relationship with the rural commission of the LGA. It will have to have a very good understanding of the RDAs, academic research into social issues, rural deprivation, rural businesses, which obviously includes land management, and perhaps a good understanding of effective lobbying in Whitehall, which will probably be an important role, and perhaps even, in this day of spin, marketing skills—you never know. The needs of the board will inevitably undergo a change in emphasis as time goes on. While I totally agree that the local authority angle is a crucial need that must be filled, I am not certain that I would want to give it a priori attention by making it the only provision mentioned in the Bill with regard to appointments to the commission. However, as I say, I am sympathetic to the amendment.
	Amendment No. 232 addresses the question of the Secretary of State appointing a deputy chair. Perhaps such a small body does not need a deputy chair. That would involve extra funding so perhaps the Secretary of State should make that decision. Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 propose that the CRC and not the Secretary of State should remove board members. There is something to be said for the decision to remove a board member being at one remove from the CRC. I believe that a nettle is more likely to be gripped that way. In those circumstances the chief executive officer would obviously have to consult with Defra and would have to ensure that all the relevant processes were correctly followed. However, I believe that the process becomes slightly less personal if the ultimate decision in such a matter is taken by the Secretary of State. In my view that could be a good thing.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support Amendment No. 231A in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, for what I acknowledge are paradoxical reasons. I was once the first headhunter in the United Kingdom. One of the principal responsibilities and obligations of a headhunter is to get the client to indicate precisely what specifications he is trying to fill, and, ideally, to give some indication of where the person might come from. The paradox arises because I have the greatest possible respect for those who were Chief Whips of the government party between 1979 and 1997, but I sometimes doubted whether they had thought in terms of specifications for particular jobs on which they made recommendations to the Prime Minister rather than thinking that the person was good in the House of Commons and would be relevant in the government. I give a single example. In the National Health Service there is a particular need for experience of achieving change in large scale organisations. I never saw any significant sign that in selecting Ministers to serve in the Department of Health between 1979 and 1997, that consideration ever entered into the process at all. If it did, they were unsuccessful in responding to that specification.
	I am enthusiastic about my noble friend's specifications on this occasion, in the same way that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was. They are specifications which could well be omitted from paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 2, which might be interpreted by an unkind critic of the drafting as "any decent rural experience will do". My noble friend's amendment simply says that the Secretary of State has to "have regard to". That is not a compulsory or mandatory specification, but I happen to think that the particular issue which he has identified is one which is immensely worth having on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I could not possibly follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, down the road of the griefs and internal problems involved in promotions to government office in the period prior to 1997. That would be most unwise of me.
	These amendments are designed to reduce some of the Secretary of State's powers in relation to the appointment of the CRC chairman and board. They do not take account of what we intend the CRC board to achieve and how we can best appoint the right people to the board to make a success of the CRC and properly address the needs of rural communities. On Amendment No. 226, for the CRC to be effective it will require a strong strategic steer. Therefore, it is essential that the board chairman has the necessary leadership skills to provide such a steer—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—in addition to the experience and expertise that all the board members will contribute. The appointment of the chairman needs to be made using different criteria from those used for board appointments, so it would not be appropriate to elect a chairman from among the board members.
	On Amendments Nos. 231 and 230, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, together with the chairman the board of the CRC should be appointed by the Secretary of State to ensure that between them they have the skills required to direct the commission in fulfilling its functions. That point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. On Amendment No. 230, surely the Secretary of State will need to consult the chairman about board appointments to help to ensure a fit between candidates' expertise and personal skills and those required by the CRC. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, bore out that need. The Secretary of State is required to follow the OCPA code of practice, so she will need to have regard to the criteria necessary to select people who will enable the board to function effectively.
	Amendment No. 231A, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, touches on very similar themes. I make it absolutely clear that all appointments to all bodies covered by the Bill will be made according to the code of practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments; the appointment of someone who happens to have local authority experience and fits the other criteria needed will not in any way be precluded by the process that is to be followed—that is important. The effect of this amendment would be that experience of the rural affairs of local authorities would become the only specified criterion for board member selection included in the Bill, beyond the general wording already included. If we were to include such a restrictive addition, we would need to consider adding similar criteria covering all the CRC's many other stakeholders to ensure that their interests were similarly represented on the CRC's board.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Perhaps I may mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, with which I naturally have considerable sympathy. I believe that when we debated the rural development Bill, we asked for a member specifically with rural interests to be included. I think that I am right in saying that the Government resisted that for a while and then gave in to us, so I live in hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, between now and Report.
	Reflecting on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular, I think that Defra has a bit of a job to do in strengthening the regional rural affairs forums. I accept that in some regions they are working well and that the chairs are very effective. However, reading between the lines of some of the contributions from noble Lords, it seems to me that, although they should be very effective bodies, all the stakeholders in the regions find that the members within those stakeholder bodies are fighting among themselves to be representatives on the regional rural affairs forums because they are powerful bodies that make a difference. If that is the case, I believe that Defra needs to see whether it should do something about it. I hope that the creation of the CRC will not mean that the regional rural affairs forums take very much second place and that Defra will not worry about them too much any more.
	One question stays in my mind. What if the rural regional affairs forum comes up with one view of life—particularly life in its region—and the CRC comes up with another? Whose voice will be heard by Ministers, including the Prime Minister? That is still an unresolved issue. Between now and Report I shall reflect on what everyone has said but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Byford: We return yet again to pensions. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me following our previous discussion and I shall explain why I wish to return to the subject.
	I understand that board members of the commission will be appointed by the Secretary of State and may be paid
	"such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine".
	The commission must also pay towards the provision of pensions, gratuities and allowances. That provision will presumably take effect at the end of each member's service, or when he or she reaches pensionable age. Why is there a need to pay a pension to those who are still serving members? If there is, on what basis will it be calculated?
	The Bill makes the same provision for the payment of pensions to the employees of the commission as it does to board members. It also sets the same proviso for the payments towards the future pension provision for employees. When we debated pensions in relation to Natural England, I was assured that the provision applied only to the board chairman and possibly the deputy chairman. I cannot accept that that is the case when in several places in the Bill the same provisions appear covering the whole board and sometimes the employees as well.
	The letter that I received from the Minister states:
	"Where a significant time commitment is required, it is often only feasible for such people to serve as board members if they are fairly remunerated for their services. An appropriate package may in these circumstances need to include pension arrangements. Such arrangements will, needless to say, only be made where they can demonstrate sound value for money. Typically, it will only be the chair, or deputy chair, of a board who falls into this category, but that may not always be the case.
	In establishing a new body, it is therefore standard practice to insert a clause taking powers to make pension arrangements for board members.
	In practice, the decision by the Secretary of State to approve pension arrangements for a board member will be a matter of discretion".
	My question, following that response, has to be: when is that decided? Is it decided when the person is interviewed and being considered as a board member? Is it part of the remit of the Secretary of State or the interview panel to discuss it with the person putting himself forward as a board member? Or is it decided afterwards when a board member has been appointed? It is not clear.
	The letter continues:
	"A situation might arise when another Board member was invited to work for more than the usual 2–3 days/month and there should be discretion to consider the pension issue".
	I am concerned about pensions and who is entitled to them. Will the existing pension of somebody who goes on to be a board member be taken up by the department, or is a pension to be part of the payment package? Perhaps the remuneration is considered not enough, which is why the pension scheme is being imposed. I am sorry to return to the issue, but I find it very perplexing. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This is a serious issue. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is saying, and that for reasons of equality, those who might otherwise not be able to afford to do so can take on such roles. That is worthy. However, when one looks at the website for government appointments, on which I congratulate them, one sees vast inequalities between the different appointments. Many appointees are paid nothing except travelling expenses; some are paid a substantial amount per year; and some a much less. That does not always reflect the amount of time given to a particular role. When the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, previously raised this matter, we asked for a list of the remunerations that bodies received. Pensions equally fall into this category. This might be one of only two or three bodies; or 20 bodies might have pensions; or, we might be setting a precedent. These are interesting issues to which we have still not had answers.

Baroness Byford: The Minister and I are in agreement on that. I do not have any difficulty there. It still raises a question, however, on how we are making a pension payment to somebody who is, perhaps, not retired and does not have a pension—unless they have saved up for themselves. Or is it being added to their commercial—I use the word in its broadest sense—pension? I will need to come back to this.
	An employee who is doing a great deal of work on a particular CRC project may have they been seconded from another department. Will they be considered to be full-time within this new department? I am obviously not going to press the matter now, but there is a whole range of issues and I have tried, in my amendments, to suggest to the Minister that they have not been addressed.
	Perhaps it would be sensible, because I do not wish to delay the House, to have further conversations on this issue between now and Report stage. I am not clear who is paying what. When somebody has been seconded to the new NDPB to do a specific job as an employee, will their pension payments will be borne by this new department, or will they be borne by, say, Defra? I accept that it is confusing, but it is a wider issue, perhaps, than I have conveyed to the Minister tonight—although I have had a second go at doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: Once again, this is a repeat of some questions we asked about Natural England. In response, the first time around, the Minister promised to get us answers and a certain number were given in Hansard. However, the question on the appointments system remains. Under the proposed system, the board could well comprise over 50 per cent of the original members in ten years' time. Will the present system still stand?
	I do shall not move Amendment No. 237. I beg to move Amendment No. 236.

The Duke of Montrose: I remind the Committee that any body corporate is bound by a number of Acts that requires it to meet financial, employment, competition and many other standards. In all cases, they render it liable to inspection by Revenue and Customs, the Health and Safety Executive, the Audit Commission and a host of other organisations. The response of the noble Baroness on Amendment No. 98 is at col. 1116 of Hansard for 24 January, but it did not answer the specific questions about the nature of the Secretary of State's inquiry; the type of person who will inspect and make copies; the explanations that will be sought and why; how often that intrusion will occur; whether the outcome will be made available to the chairman; and whether the Secretary of State will publicise the exercise, the reasons for it and the results. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendment No. 256 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 257 and 258. They are concerned with the information provided by the commission. If the commission is to be established, it should publish documents and provide information, so Amendment No. 256 substitutes "may" for "shall" thereby putting a duty on the commission. That duty is not an alternative: the commission must publish documents, provide information and assist in the provision of information, because it will not always be in a position to publish itself. In our debates, we have accepted that there is a role for the commission and the provision of information is one of the critical roles that it can play. Apart from monitoring and criticising other organisations, it will gather information. If that information is not published and disseminated as widely as possible, it will be difficult for other organisations to know what the commission's requirements are. Furthermore, the general public has a right to as a wide an awareness as possible. This clause could do with strengthening and that is what this amendment does. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: I understand the nature of this probing amendment. Clause 24(2) gives the Secretary of State power to fund the CRC and to place conditions on such funding. The conditions can include a requirement for the commission to agree a management statement and financial memorandum between itself and the department. This is normal practice to ensure accountability and propriety, and how things currently work for the Countryside Agency. But because the CRC will not be a delivery body, unlike Natural England, it will be a strong independent rural advocate, adviser and watchdog, ensuring that the Government's policies make a real difference to people in rural areas. That is one reason why the Bill does not require a guidance clause.
	The second reason is that the CRC is an advisory, as opposed to a delivery, NDPB. In its challenge function, it has to be reliant on its impartiality and independence from government in order to carry out its remit. I should have thought that the noble Duke would be pleased that its independence is being strengthened by the fact that it does not have to have guidance in the clause—unlike Natural England, which, as he rightly pointed out, has a guidance clause.
	If the Secretary of State were able to issue the body with guidance beyond the sort envisaged by Clause 24(2), or the new clause proposed in the amendment, this could give be perceived as jeopardising the CRC's independence. If it is not thought to be as independent as it possibly can be, it is more likely to fail than succeed, to judge from what noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have said.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: The noble Viscount raises some interesting questions. On the Minister's reply about guidance and directions, I simply ask who decides what is absurd. The commission may be doing something that the Minister regards as well beyond its brief but, if it believes that to be needed for rural areas, is it for the Minister to step in to say that what it is doing is absurd? We have severe reservations about the clause, especially given that we have had the words "strong independent voice" quoted to us more times since we started to debate the Bill then I can imagine. I question whether that voice can stay independent if it is given directions every time that it does something awkward, which may well be the case.
	I am reassured that the noble Viscount says that he will review the provision against the Natural England requirements, and so on. Perhaps we shall come back to the matter on Report.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton: My Lords, this is a valuable, if short, debate. I am particularly pleased to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of the Liverpool, because I am very interested in the new Francis of Assisi school, to which I shall turn in a minute.
	I begin by asking what parents seek when they are looking for a school for their children. I think we basically agree that, ideally, we want it to be local, with a great head teacher; with a strong ethos and clear social and behavioural norms; with clear boundaries and disciplinary codes based on punishment and reward which are understood and operated by all the adults; with good relations between the staff and students; with a strong pastoral system; with high and/or improving standards and high aspirations set for all the pupils; with strong expectations of parental input into the school and openness to parents; and with it being a part of the community. If a school has got all of the above, the chances are that it is oversubscribed.
	But in which schools are these attributes to be found, especially in inner cities? I think we need to recognise that they are often found in faith schools, particularly in inner cities. That is not, by any means, the case in all faith schools—and absolutely not only in faith schools—but something is going right in many faith schools. Often this is a combination of a strong ethos permeating the whole school. That is not necessarily, or even primarily, a specific faith ethos; it is wider than that. I think the effect of being a voluntary-aided school can help in a couple of ways. There are more freedoms, both real and often just perceived, for the head and the governing body. That tends to attract the best of both.
	I have to confess, however—this point has been raised by other noble Lords today—that I feel uneasy about two aspects of some faith schools. First, the selection procedures must be fair and transparent, but we all know that at times that is not the case. I welcome the proposals to end interviews, but I think we need to go further. Secondly, I am nervous of single-faith intakes in a minority of schools. These cannot help to promote tolerance or cohesiveness. That is why the Liverpool academy is so exciting. As someone who went to school in Liverpool, I think it an amazing step forward to have Anglican and Roman Catholic education brought together.
	I am also interested in the longer-term prospect that academies and trust schools may allow for multi-faith schools, going even wider than the Liverpool experiment. I talked recently to an MP who was concerned about the number of pupils in his constituency going to independent Islamic schools. He said that the parents largely wanted what they called moral and decent schools—schools with rules, respect and results. They did not, for the most part, necessarily want independent or even mono-faith schools. Therefore, I hope that one outcome of the current discussion of the schools White Paper will be to allow the prospect of new schools in the state sector that can meet this demand and offer high-quality education to more pupils in a multi-faith way.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. Some years ago, I visited a project in Northern Ireland where children of both denominations were sent to the United States for some weeks. They came back and I attended a reunion of the parents and the children who had taken part in the project. As I wandered round this hall in Dungannon, I was dismayed at the number of parents of one faith who had never had a cup of tea with parents of the other faith. What we have in Northern Ireland is a divided society. I am not saying that integrated schools in Northern Ireland would solve all the problems of that society, but, goodness me, they would certainly help.
	We know that children who are in a school of one faith are all too prone to demonise children of the other faith. I remember those dreadful incidents in north Belfast, when children were trying to get to Holy Cross School. The television news teams went to Lagan College, which is integrated, and interviewed some of its students, who said, "We can't understand this. We sit together in the same classrooms and we have no problem. How can they have a problem over there?" So it is not surprising that in Northern Ireland, in June 2003, 82 per cent of parents supported integrated education, 81 per cent said that integrated schools were important in building peace and reconciliation and 52 per cent said that the only reason they did not send their children to an integrated school was that there was not one in their locality. They just want a choice and the option of being able to do that.
	Although the situation in Britain is very different from that in Northern Ireland, I fear that there are lessons from Northern Ireland that we ought to learn. We have seen some of that where, willy-nilly, the schools in some of our northern towns are segregated. That may be because of housing and the accident of geography, but the fact is that when children are divided and do not sit in the same classrooms as children of another faith, we are beginning to have a divided society. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, referred to that very clearly in his report on Bradford, to which reference has already been made.
	We cannot turn the clock back. All we can do is go on in this direction. I hope that the Government will put a halt to further faith schools. Let us consider where we are and see if we can move backwards a little. We are a multicultural society; let us treat our children as people who will become responsible members of that society.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Taverne for initiating this timely and interesting debate, but speaking from the Front Bench, I also need to disassociate myself very firmly from the views that he expressed. Liberal Democrats recognise the popularity and success of many faith schools. They are oversubscribed and achieve on straight points higher than average GCSE and A-level scores. We have argued for changes in admissions procedures similar to those now being advocated in the White Paper debate, but at no time have we argued for or advocated the removal of state funding from these schools.
	Historically, our state school system in this country owes much to the early provision of Anglican, Non-Conformist and Roman Catholic schools and the partnership that they formed in the late 19th century with the state sector—a partnership that was renewed in the Butler Education Act 1944, which has generally speaking stood the test of time and proved very successful. We also recognise the logic of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that if we offered partnership to the Anglican and Roman Catholic schools, this country could not reasonably withhold partnership from schools of other faiths. Equally, when the Government passed the 1998 Act, we had not expected that this Government would start promoting a policy which explicitly encouraged the takeover of existing community schools by faith communities and other faith-based sponsors.
	We have reservations about this policy, based on issues of social integration. We accept that the social mix of church schools is more diverse than of the foundation schools; the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that of the 200 top-performing schools identified by the Good Schools Guide, 70 per cent are foundation or church schools—and they are disproportionate in their make-up. Only 5 per cent of their intake have free school meals, as distinct from an average of 15 per cent of the country as a whole. Within the White Paper debate, there has been increasing evidence from research at the University of Bristol, at the LSE and from the Sutton Trust that when schools are their own admissions authority, a far smaller proportion of children come from low-income families than in the general run of schools.
	We also have reservations on community integration. That dates back to the Cantle and Ouseley reports mentioned by other noble Lords in this debate, after the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. Those reports noted the important role of schools as integrating institutions in the community and warned against a proliferation of faith-based schools, which could serve to fragment the community on ethnic lines. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, it is essential that these schools adopt the national curriculum. Those reservations were echoed recently by David Bell in his recent speech to the Hansard Society. He said:
	"This growth in faith schools needs to be carefully . . . monitored by government to ensure that pupils at all schools, receive an understanding of not only their own faith but of other faiths and the wider tenets of British society".
	We agree with that. It is why there needs to be careful reflection on whether England really needs to establish many more faith schools. But in the multi-racial society in which we now live, we think that there are times when our community schools need perhaps to be more sensitive to their multi-faith responsibilities.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for enabling us to discuss faith schools this evening. On behalf of the Government, I should like to recognise at the outset the positive contribution made by the Church of England, the Church of Wales, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations to education in England and Wales since the advent of our state education system, and the contribution of other faith communities in more recent decades.
	The Question on the Order Paper is very specific; it asks what plans the Government have for the extension of faith schools. I shall address that question before commenting on some of the wider issues raised, if I have time. The answer to the noble Lord's question is that the Government themselves have no plans for new faith schools, since central government in England does not of course establish or run any schools. Rather, the Government conceive their duty as being to sustain and improve local and national decision-making structures, which enable new schools, including new faith schools, to be established when they have bona fide promoters who satisfy the local responsible decision-takers that such schools meet clear parental demands and offer high quality education within national rules governing curriculum, inclusion, inspection, accountability and admissions.
	The decision-takers with the greatest role in this process are local authorities, directly through their legal powers in respect of school planning and organisation, indirectly through their resources and their ownership of much of the suitable land for school buildings, and also through their local political leadership. Many local authorities have historically sought a diversity of provision in their area to meet parental demands, including the provision of church and minority faith schools. Under the terms of the Education Act 2005, there must be open competitions for new and replacement secondary schools. Those competitions are open to faith promoters as to other school promoters and continue to be open to existing private schools, faith or other, to apply to join the state system, as has been the case since the Butler Act.
	We proposed in the recent White Paper on schools that these competitions and proposals, currently determined by local school organisation committees, should in future, subject to legislation, be decided by local authorities, or by local adjudicators in certain circumstances. In taking those decisions, local authorities and local adjudicators will be expected to take account of parental representations and the contribution that proposals will make to meeting local parental demands and promoting high standards, diversity and choice.
	A concern for some in the faith communities is the capital requirements when transferring existing faith schools into the state system where local decision-makers have agreed in principle to support that. We propose to make it easier for such independent schools to enter the state sector by relaxing the school premises requirements for new state schools so that they can join the state system in their existing premises, which will already have had to meet essential educational and child welfare standards. We know that this is an issue for some independent faith schools that have been unable to secure capital funding to build new premises, and we want such schools to have the option to join the state sector when that is what local decision-makers and parents wish to happen. They would then work with their local authorities to improve the standard of their premises, including with the new "Building Schools for the Future" programme.
	In the case of academies, which are directly funded and regulated by the Department for Education and Skills, it is the Secretary of State, not local decision-makers, who decides whether to allow a proposal for a new school to proceed. However, academies are almost always developed in collaboration with local authorities, which generally provide some or all of the land, which includes the eight academies with faith sponsors.
	A case in point is the excellent new Liverpool Academy in the deprived Kensington district of the city, which was developed, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool has described so eloquently, as an innovative partnership between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, with the strong support of Liverpool City Council. This is one of a number of new schools in which the Church of England has been involved following the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and if proposals for a multi-faith school were to be presented we would look at them sympathetically.
	Over the years, the number and type of faith schools have changed. Nationwide about 30 per cent of state-funded schools currently have a faith sponsor—that is, 36 per cent of primary schools and 17 per cent of secondary. To set this in a historical context, in 1946, following the passage of Butler's Act and its educational settlement between Church and state, some 40 per cent of England's state-funded schools were church schools. Of today's 7,000 faith schools, almost all are associated with the major Christian denominations, but over recent years we have seen other faiths promoting schools. In the state sector we now have 36 Jewish schools, six Muslim schools, two Sikh schools and one Greek Orthodox school—the last of those agreed before my time, but a cause of great rejoicing within my own immigrant community. I should stress that all these minority faith schools have been approved by local decision-makers and decision-making processes, and operate within the rules on curriculum, admissions, inspection and regulation within the locally maintained system.
	The answer to the specific Question posed by the noble Lord is that any expansion in the number of faith schools will not be the result of any government planning, but rather of proposals from bona fide faith promoters that meet clear parental demands and offer high quality education in conformity with appropriate local and national regulations.
	This debate raises an important underlying issue, however, which I would like to address in the time remaining: the nature of faith schools themselves. A supposition underpinning much of the debate on this subject is that faith schools are not strongly committed to inclusion. In fact, in respect of admissions, there is wide diversity of practice to meet local circumstances, and we believe faith schools as a whole are as strongly committed to community engagement and inclusion as other schools. Taking up first the issue of admissions, which the noble Lords, Lord Taverne and Lord Baker, raised, some faith schools do give an absolute priority to members of their own faith, although since 2002 it has been illegal for any school in the state system to refuse places to those of other faiths or no faith if they have places vacant. Also, we announced on Monday that it is our intention in the forthcoming Education Bill to end by law the practice of interviews as part of the admission process for faith schools to ascertain faith commitments.
	It is not the Government's view that such a policy of giving absolute priority to members of one faith or another is of itself incompatible with a community commitment and cohesion. However, many faith schools do not adopt such a policy of giving absolute priority to members of their own denomination or faith. This appears to be an increasing trend, and we welcome it. The Church of England has a particular tradition of providing schools, not just for Anglicans, but for the local community as a whole. The Archbishop of Canterbury has committed all Church of England schools to seeking to give priority for at least some places to children of other faiths or none. The House of Bishops issued a statement to this effect in 2002. It is repeated in the national guidance from the Church's board of education to all Church of England schools, and it has our support. For example, the Sir John Cass school in Tower Hamlets allocates only 20 per cent of places on the basis of Christian faith, and the majority of pupils at the school belong to the Muslim faith. There are many other schools with similar stories to tell.
	Similarly, many non-Catholics attend Catholic schools, particularly in inner-city areas. Around 14 per cent of pupils in Catholic primary schools, and 21 per cent in Catholic secondary schools, are non-Catholic. It is also a fact that, overall, Roman Catholic schools have a higher proportion of minority ethnic pupils than non-faith schools.
	With regard to schools with other faith sponsors: in Hayes, the Guru Nanak Sikh primary and secondary schools give some priority to children of any faith. As well as Sikh students, the school community also includes Christian, Hindu and Muslim students. The new city academies also provide examples of faith schools whose admission arrangements are explicitly inclusive of other faiths or none. The Liverpool Kensington Academy has already been mentioned. The United Learning Trust, a Church of England foundation of private and state schools, whose president is the noble Lord, Lord Carey, is the sponsor of four academies of a non-denominational Christian character. Of these, only one gives a fairly modest priority to members of the Christian faith; the others give no priority on the basis of faith, but have 100 per cent local community admissions.
	The Government are strongly supportive of such admissions policies for faith schools that extend places to those of other faiths and no faith. The code of practice on admissions says on this point:
	"Faith schools can contribute to community cohesion by having admissions arrangements that are inclusive of other faiths and of all elements of the population in their local area. Some faith schools already achieve inclusiveness by designating a proportion of places for which children of their own faith or denomination will be given priority . . . this is quite different from quotas, which would reserve places solely for particular groups, and would mean leaving places empty if not enough members of those groups apply".
	There is much else I could say, but I have run out of time. In conclusion, in preparing for this debate, I read a good deal of what faith leaders themselves have said about the role of faith schools. I was particularly struck by a remark of the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, who, in talking of the distinct ethos of faith schools, dwelt on the Jewish ethos of schools in his community, but added that equally central to the successful faith school was that it should embody:
	"the principle that every child counts, that each has unique gifts, that each has a singular contribution to make, without which the world would be a poorer place".
	To my mind that sums up the mission of every school, with or without a faith sponsor. The faith communities make a significant and distinct contribution to this mission within our national education system, and, where parents want faith schools with this commitment and this ethos, we believe it right that they should be able to choose them.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank my noble friend Lord Carter. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not wish to create an different approach whereby Natural England can advise some public bodies but not others, as the amendment envisages. Statutory undertakers, which include the water industry, are important bodies that can affect the natural environment in both good ways and bad. It is important that Natural England is able to deal with statutory undertakers on the same footing as others, and where necessary provide advice. All our public bodies should—and, I hope, would—wish to play a full part in delivering our vision for the natural environment. The wording we have used is also consistent with the definition of "public bodies" in other legislation. The definition applies to this Bill only. Definitions in other legislation will not affect what is in this Bill as it stands. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness but it is one of those areas where she may welcome clarification in writing.

Baroness Byford: The Minister's last response has made my resolve even firmer. This is a slightly unsatisfactory position to be in. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I accept the comments made by noble friend Lord Peel. Obviously we want to increase biodiversity, or to have an awareness of it—and the noble Baroness is right to suggest that back in 1990 it was not something that was talked about.
	Do I take it from the Minister that he is content that England and Wales can do something, or try to improve things, but that Scotland can go its own sweet way anyway? It seems extraordinary that in one part of this UK-wide conservation body you cannot tighten up or improve on what you are trying to get the four parts to do. If that is so, I think that it is very sad and, I would have thought, slightly unsatisfactory.
	On my second point, I will look at Amendment No. 273 again carefully. I think that noble Lords have suggested that the issue might be more relevant to Natural England itself rather than to where it is in this particular part of the Bill. I hope that I interpret what the Minister said correctly. I know that it is just after supper, but Amendment No. 272 has been laid for some time—the typo of using the word "conversation" instead of "conservation" was in the amendment before dinner, not just after. I looked at the amendment earlier this morning and said, "Whoops! This is not very good".
	I thank the Minister for his response. I suspect that we may want to consider the issue a little further but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 274) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 50

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: We have had a preliminary canter around the course on an early amendment on an earlier evening, moved by my noble friend Lord Peel in connection with the UN convention. To mix the metaphor, that rolled the wicket for this amendment, but I should still do justice to the issue. This amendment is actively supported by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, a nature and conservation consortium which will be well known to many in your Lordships' House. It consists of 15 national organisations whose names I shall not read into the record in their entirety but which include the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and the Council for National Parks as well as societies devoted to the conservation of individual species. They have 7 million members in all and manage 398,000 hectares of land.
	One of the member organisations, which also specifically supports this amendment, is the Wildlife Trusts, the headquarters of the country wildlife trusts, with which I declared various interests at Second Reading. Both the umbrella organisations welcomed Clause 40, but wish it to go further and use the words "to further" to that end. Many public authorities take significant steps to conserve and enhance biodiversity, but the Bill limits their statutory duty towards conserving biodiversity to that familiar amulet against judicial review of "having regard to". I am engaged with similar amendments on the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Bill, but there the essential purpose of the Bill is directed elsewhere. Here, we are dealing with Natural England and thus need to send a stronger message than that of an amulet.
	Much more could be done than that, in conserving biodiversity—and I mean actively conserving, enhancing and restoring biodiversity. We are looking for real achievement and not lip service. I offer a number of examples at national level. Public bodies own and manage a significant amount of land that can further biodiversity. For example, the Prison Service recognises the importance of biodiversity on its estate and has conducted surveys and produced its own biodiversity action plan with different partners including English Nature and the Wildlife Trusts. In Northern Ireland, in my direct experience although outside this Bill, prisons have rabbits in profusion within the grounds, although I acknowledge that the Maze lived up to its reputation by keeping them out.
	I have alluded to the 2012 Olympic development in London, which has enormous potential to provide benefits for biodiversity with the regeneration of the land in that part of the capital. It is important that the Olympic Development Authority takes biodiversity seriously, not only in the run-up to 2012 but when looking to the future legacy. Regional development agencies can take significant account of biodiversity alongside economic development in planning for regeneration. In the Idle Valley in Nottinghamshire, the regional development agency sponsored feasibility work on a major rural regeneration project which involved significant gains for biodiversity.
	A good example of the introduction of planning conditions by local authorities to create appropriate biodiversity habitats is the Section 106 agreement introduced by Newbury District Council on the redevelopment of Greenham Common airbase. That resulted in a significant increase in the extent of lowland heathland, a priority habitat under the UK biodiversity action plan. Local authorities and other bodies can play a fuller part in furthering biodiversity conservation through the management of land holdings. For example, managing roadside verges for road safety and biodiversity or amenity grassland for recreation and biodiversity, by changing cutting regimes, can be cost-neutral or even save money while helping to enhance biodiversity.
	I give an incidental example of a potential contradiction in legislation. The Scottish Parliament is to be congratulated on the inclusion of a clear duty on public bodies to,
	"further the conservation of biodiversity",
	in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. But biodiversity does not recognise national boundaries, and there are populations of the same UK biodiversity action plan species and areas of the same UK biodiversity action plan priority habitats in Scotland and England.
	Some government departments and agencies, such as the Ministry of Defence, have reserved responsibilities; however, we understand that the MoD's land management in Scotland will come under the Scottish duty. The difference between the duty in the Scottish and English legislation could therefore result in inconsistent treatment of biodiversity. The MoD in England would be required to "have regard to" the conservation of an area of priority habitat, such as upland heathland, within its ownership, but it would have a duty to "further the conservation" of the same habitat in Scotland. Pressures on diversity in England are as intense, if not more so, than in Scotland. England's biodiversity therefore merits at least the same level of consideration and input from public authorities as it receives already in Scotland.
	Finally, in terms of examples, in my own county of Wiltshire, local authorities could be working with the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust to identify land that could be protected and where it could be restored and enhanced to create interconnected areas of habitat. The wildlife trusts in the south-west have developed a robust methodology for identifying those key areas, called Rebuilding Biodiversity. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust has played a central role in its development and adoption by other environmental bodies, including English Nature.
	Local authorities could also look at land in its stewardship—I am thinking of local nature reserves, country parks, council estates and county farms—to see how they might improve their biodiversity. Local authorities could also work with nature conservation organisations to devise and fund monitoring on indicators for local development documents. That is a requirement of the new planning system for annual monitoring reports. Much of that information is not already recorded. Local authorities could also be contributing to biodiversity in their area by investing in the voluntary sector and working in partnership with it. Wiltshire Wildlife Trust receives money from Wiltshire County Council and Salisbury District Council for various activities. Both local authorities, for example, invest in the Biological Records Centre run by the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. The records are vital for local authorities to know where the rich wildlife sites are—and, indeed, used to be. I am not saying that there are no financial contributions to this work; both Salisbury District Council and Wiltshire County Council give money, and I admire those contributions. But the conservation of biodiversity could be furthered if the amendment were to be added to the Bill.
	In conclusion, Working with the grain of nature: A biodiversity strategy for England acknowledged that if the Government are to meet their international biodiversity targets, including halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2010, biodiversity must be mainstreamed into all their activities. The strategy recognised that if biodiversity is to be conserved effectively, the Government will need to go beyond site protection and implementation of action plans by the nature conservation agencies. Biodiversity conservation is something that all public authorities can and should play a part in. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, with great pleasure. I am happy that if this amendment was agreed to, we would not be able to pass Amendment No. 278, because I find the noble Lord's amendment much more satisfactory than my own. He has spoken eloquently of all the reasons why this public duty needs strengthening. I must declare an interest as a vice-president of Wildlife Link and a member of both Devon and Somerset Wildlife Trusts.
	The noble Lord is right when he talks of the important role local authorities can play. In my experience, as he mentioned, they often have landholdings, county farms and country parks. They also play a critical role in development control. Often what is needed even more than resources is an attitude of mind that questions all the time: "If we changed this policy, if we did things differently, how would it improve things?". In my time as a Somerset county councillor, our partnership with Somerset Wildlife Trust was one of the joys of that job, and one of the strengths in helping to move forward much of our work on the wetter holdings we had, because of the strength of the trust's experience with wetlands. I should also mention the RSPB, who played a big role in developing a whole new way of working around land, water management and so on.
	I support the noble Lord's Amendment No. 277, but I must speak to Amendment No. 279 at the same time; in particular, to paragraph (b). To interpret this a little more for noble Lords, my amendment talks of,
	"ensuring resources to gather sufficient scientific knowledge to maintain a basis on which to achieve the objectives of paragraph (a)",
	which are:
	"restoring or enhancing a population or habitat".
	The purpose of this amendment is to enable a short debate on the sad news that the three elements of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are to be closed, and to find out what the Government's thinking is about that.
	The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is run under the Natural Environment Research Council, which controls the funding and has decided to cut its budget in this particular direction. However, the buck stops with the Government, because the Government provide funding to the NERC, so they cannot simply say, "The NERC has made the decision in the best way it can as to where the cuts will fall". It is also a government responsibility. My amendment is intended to make it clear that it should be a government responsibility.
	At a time of climate change, when what is happening to each individual species or habitat cannot be viewed as standalone, it has become evident that a database cutting across all that knowledge about individual populations, be they amphibians, butterflies, mammals or plants, goes to build an entire picture. That is why the collection of this information by such a body as the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology is so critical, because it brings together the leading research establishments and gathers that information together. Just when we are realising how critical it is to have the information which enables us not only to say, "This is what's happening as a result of climate change", but to learn how to adapt to climate change and how best to protect habitats and enable species to survive some of these changes, we need the best knowledge we can get. It is for that reason in particular that this seems such a strange time for the Government to allow these centres to close. I am glad to say that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats felt equally strongly about this matter and a strong statement was made on it by the Conservative MP, Mr Peter Ainsworth, and the Liberal Democrat MP, Mr Norman Baker.
	I hope that, having heard the strong feelings that have been expressed, the Minister will say that the Government are looking into the matter. This has been a very fortuitous discussion on public authorities' duty to conserve biodiversity. It is the Government's prime duty to conserve biodiversity. That duty must start with the Government as they are at the head of all public authorities. Therefore, they should set an example in this regard. I cannot accept that the Government will lay this duty on all local authorities but then renege on it themselves, as the withdrawal of the relevant funding seems to suggest.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I refer to paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 279, to which my noble friend Lady Miller spoke, and the cuts in environmental research. It is not just that research establishments are being closed down. I back her all the way on what she said about the two bodies which are due to close and the impact of that on biodiversity. Further, the environmental research councils have cut the budgets of other experimental bodies, for example, the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth, which covers the whole of the UK and not just Wales. It has an experimental farm in North Wycke in Devon. Its budget has been cut and there will be job losses. That institute is engaged in research on drought resistant grasslands. It is very important that its research on climate change and the need for diversity in our grasslands continues. The organisation engages in fundamental and applied research. I add those comments to show that it is clearly not the time to cut back on those research budgets.

Baroness Byford: I support and thank my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for tabling this very important amendment. I hope that the Minister will end the evening by accepting the amendment or saying that he will take it away and think about it. As I say, this is an enormously important amendment.
	The Minister was not with us when, back in 2000, we took the Countryside and Rights of Way Act through, in which biodiversity was first mentioned and put in as an amendment, which the Government eventually accepted. It was a very bold step at that stage, and it was very necessary. In considering his response to the amendment, and the support that has been given to it around the House, I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the importance that we feel attaches to this. It is easy to say, "Yes, we have in mind that we might do something", and it becomes very wordy, but the addition of the word "further" is enormously important. My noble friend, in introducing the amendment, said that like many others of us he had received very good briefing from the Wildlife and Countryside Link groups, which have given their support to the amendment. My noble friend said that originally it would be cost neutral and that it might save money in some cases; he is right. He added that in certain circumstances there are to be costs; but there are costs in whatever we do. Certainly, the seasons are changing rapidly in this country. We seem to have drier spells for longer, and then we seem to have heavy rains. We have sunshine and then no sunshine. If that weather pattern continues, there will be even greater pressure on the biodiversity in this country.
	I have a couple of questions for the Minister, particularly on the closure of those important research centres, which the noble Baroness referred to earlier. My honourable friend Peter Ainsworth, who I am sorry is not still with us in the Chamber, recognised the importance of those centres. When the Minister responds, will he tell us exactly what savings the Government think they will make by closing those centres? Where will that skill base end up? Will they all be made redundant? That is as important as the closure of the buildings. Are they going to be reallocated to different areas? It is important for us to know that.
	My noble friend Lord Peel said that the amendment is brave. We must not lose these opportunities when they come before us. We are not likely to have another Bill of this magnitude before the House for many, many years. When we look back to the CROW Bill, the fact that we did not recognise the need for a marine section was one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and I were quite cross that we let slip by. It has been nearly six years since that Act was passed, and we have not addressed the marine side of the environment. Although a draft marine Act is planned, it may be some time before it comes before the House in the form of a proper Bill.
	We have that opportunity now. I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded by the arguments. I agree that the Government have their own international targets, and we should not shirk those. Sometimes in life one has to take on challenges that are not always comfortable. It is much easier to take the easy way out. I support the amendment, and I thank my noble friend for bringing it forward and explaining it so clearly to us tonight.

Lord Bach: It is late at night to be having such a passionate argument, but this is an important issue and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for having raised it. I am going to disappoint the Committee tonight and I shall try to explain as briefly as I can why that is so.
	I start with Clause 40, which places a duty on all public bodies and statutory agencies to have regard to conserving biodiversity in the normal exercise of their functions. The definition of conservation in the Bill includes restoring and enhancing habitats and populations of living species. Amendment No. 277 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would change that duty to require public bodies to further the conservation of biodiversity.
	Noble Lords will know that there were interesting discussions on this topic during the Bill's passage through another place. As was said at Standing Committee there, the Government are comfortable that the existing words are strong enough to encourage public bodies to integrate biodiversity into their functions. The clause as it stands aims to enhance biodiversity conservation in England and Wales through improved integration into decision-making processes in the public sector.
	Although the duty does not pre-judge the outcomes for biodiversity, it should mean that decisions are more beneficial for the conservation of biodiversity than they might otherwise have been. As we are primarily trying to tackle instances where biodiversity loses out or is forgotten because it is simply not taken into account or considered, we believe that this duty is sufficient.
	An example given at Standing Committee in another place looked at local authorities and planning applications. Currently 67 per cent of local authorities do not include questions on biodiversity within their planning applications. This new duty, as set out in the clause, would address that. In short, our view is that the duty to "have regard", as set out in the clause, is the most appropriate response.
	I was asked why we are against strengthening this duty to "furthering", which appears in the amendment. We think that the provision as drafted strikes a balance between stakeholder views and provides for a duty that raises the profile of biodiversity and consolidates and clarifies existing statutory requirements without creating a new burden. With this duty—this is significant—we are trying to tackle instances where biodiversity is inadvertently damaged through not being considered in decision-making processes, and we are trying to cultivate a higher awareness of biodiversity so that positive outcomes are more likely. We have incorporated complete flexibility in delivery to stimulate innovation, so public bodies may go further if they want to. In those cases, they will realise the social, economic and environmental benefits that healthy diversity brings.
	We have incorporated complete flexibility in delivery to stimulate innovation, so public bodies may go further if they want to. In those cases, they will realise the social, economic and environmental benefits that healthy diversity brings.
	I was reminded of the Scottish experience. Thankfully it is not my place to comment on the practice of the devolved administrations. However, public bodies in this country and in Wales would be free to go beyond the duty,
	"to have regard . . . to the purpose of conserving biodiversity".
	In some cases, we know that they do so already. The Ministry of Defence, which I know reasonably well, and which was referred to in the debate, is an example. It is developing a biodiversity strategy across the UK defence estate. It is also MoD policy that all sites with a designated or protected species must have an MoD conservation group to advise on that nature conservation interest. If it is suggested that we are not doing a great deal for biodiversity, I would dispute that. We are doing a lot. That is an apt demonstration of how the duty to "have regard" delivers real benefits for biodiversity. There is no evidence—none has been put before us tonight—that the wording of the duty is not sufficient.
	We are, in effect, being asked to tell public authorities that they have to promote biodiversity. We support and encourage the promotion of biodiversity. We expect the duty on public authorities to result in raised awareness of biodiversity issues. None the less, while it will be appropriate for some public bodies, such as local authorities, to be involved in biodiversity, it may not be appropriate for others. For example, it may not be appropriate to expect a fire authority to be involved in the promotion of biodiversity issues. The generic nature of the duty allows appropriate flexibility in delivery, and allows public bodies to implement it in the way most relevant to their functions and opportunities open to them. Adding the requirement to promote biodiversity will only add complexity to the duty and make it harder to define what a public authority has to do to comply.
	I know that there is a lot of support for local authorities' role in this field, but strengthening the duty further, as proposed in the amendment, would raise difficult questions for local authorities. I wonder whether they have been fully considered. Under such a duty, a local authority could be faced with a decision between two projects: one that is good for biodiversity, but bad in other ways; and one that is neutral. Would the authority be obliged to approve the first project? Those are the kind of issues that the courts would have to consider.

Lord Bach: I am grateful, but the whole argument about local authorities is hypothetical because we have not yet changed the law.
	I notice that I was immediately interrupted, quite properly, when I dared to mention local authorities. However, I notice that no one got on their feet so quickly when I mentioned the example of the fire service, which is a public authority. It would have to change its habits and customs if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, went through. I suppose I have rather invited the interruption that is now going to happen.

Baroness Byford: It is this Government who are proposing to alter totally how local government works. For example, the Minister has mentioned the fire service, but I could mention the police service. There are many of us in this Chamber who are apprehensive about some of the proposals for merging police forces. Those who live in rural areas, in particular, worry that the infrequency with which they see people on patrol in their areas—you can understand why, because priorities have to be taken—is indicative of the Government adding to local authorities' difficulties. In addition, the Government put extra burdens on local authorities and do not fund them accordingly.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I would like to clarify a matter with the Minister. In the first instance, clearly it is a decision for NERC. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, a question, to which he replied:
	"The Government provides funding to the . . . NERC to support research and related postgraduate training in environmental sciences in the UK".
	If the Government are the primary funding body, surely they have a fundamental role in saying what that government-provided money should be used for. My submission is that the Government should not be saying that this is a decision for NERC, but that they should be taking a more active interest in what appears to be going to fall by the wayside if these cuts are carried through.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister made it clear that he was going to disappoint us. This is obviously not—I repeat not—the equivalent of the Latin American diplomat in the margins of whose speech appeared the words, "Weak point: shout". The Minister was robust in his reply. More significant, perhaps, was the mild problem that he seemed to be having controlling his papers. I did not say that the Government or public authorities are not doing anything about biodiversity. Indeed, I paid tribute to what is being done.
	The Minister himself said that 67 per cent of local authorities do not at present have questions relating to biodiversity in their planning procedures. That is an index of present attitudes. The Minister implied that, under the Bill, everything that can be done will be done, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied on the related subject of global warming that everything that can be done is not being done. As my noble friend Lord Peel generously implied, our task is to expand what mankind can do. Human groups change their behaviour when those leading them want them to change. The Minister must forgive us if we wonder whether the Government really want to change us.
	I realise that it is late at night. The Minister is necessarily operating under greater fatigue than I am. Of course, I shall allow for that when I re-read in the morning what he said this evening. I dare say that he will re-read it, too. Any body under judicial review has simply to prove that, before taking action or making decisions, it thought about the words of the Bill. I am not myself a lawyer, but my brother is.
	I close by saying that the issue seems to have caught the interest of the Committee without the Minister being able immediately to extinguish the fire. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.